Conway v. Adrian Carriers, LLC. et al

Filing 137

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 129 Motion in Limine and granting in part and denying in part 131 Motion in Limine. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/31/2018. (klh)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TAMMY CONWAY, individually,
and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of David Conway,
deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 15-01137-DRH

ADRIAN CARRIERS, LLC,
and GREGORY LEE HORNE,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are the parties ripe motions limine (Docs. 1129 &
131). Based on the following, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
motions.
The district court has the inherent authority to manage the course of a
trial.

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443

(1984). The court may exercise this power by issuing an evidentiary ruling in
advance

of

trial.

Id.

A

party

may

seek

such

a

ruling

by

filing

a motion in limine, which requests the court's guidance on what evidence will (or
will not) be admitted at trial. Perry v. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 248, 252 (7th Cir.
2013). Prudent motions in limine serve a gatekeeping function by allowing the
judge “to eliminate from further consideration evidentiary submissions that clearly
Page 1 of 11

ought not be presented to the jury.” Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family

Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). By defining the evidentiary
boundaries, motions in limine both permit “the parties to focus their preparation
on those matters that will be considered by the jury,” id. and help ensure “that
trials are not interrupted mid-course for the consideration of lengthy and complex
evidentiary issues,” United States v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir . 2002).
As with all evidentiary matters, the court has broad discretion when ruling
on motions in limine. United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir.
2015); Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002).
Moreover, the Court can change its ruling at trial, “even if nothing unexpected
happens[.]” Luce, 469 U.S. at 41, 105 S.Ct. 460. Rulings in limine are speculative
in effect; essentially, they are advisory opinions. Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d
562, 570 (7th Cir. 1999) (Coffey, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Plaintiff’s motion in limine (Doc. 129)
1. Any mention of advertising lawyers: The Court grants this motion without
objection.
2. Any mention of Gregory Horne’s driving record being “clean”: The Court
grants this motion over defendants’ objection. Further, the Court rules that
no evidence or argument will be allowed about any aspect of Gregory Horne’s
driving record prior to the subject accident.
3. Testimony, evidence or argument about the number of lawsuits, the size of
Page 2 of 11

verdicts, the economic effect of lawsuits on insurance or other similar “tort
reform” matters: The Court grants the motion without objection.
4. Any mention or reference to David Conway’s CDL status: The Court grants
the motion without objection. However, the Court will allow evidence that
David Conway possessed a CDL.
5. Any mention or reference to prior drug/alcohol use by David Conway: The
Court grants the motion without objection as to both drivers.
6. Any mention or reference to alcohol or drugs of any kind in David Conway
blood after the crash: The Court grants the motion as to both drivers.
7. Any mention or reference to fault of a third party: The Court denies this
motion. Evidence of the actions of a third party may be relevant and a ruling
at trial as to its admissibility is appropriate based on its nature.
8. Any mention or reference to contributory negligence of David Conway,
including: excessive speed, failure to change lanes, failure to keep vehicle
under control, following too closely, failure to keep a careful look out: The
Court denies this motion. Defendants are allowed to produce evidence to
support the affirmative defense.
9. Any mention or reference to the amount of time that David Conway or
Gregory Horne had to react at the time of the incident: The Court denies
this motion. The evidence is relevant and defendants are allowed to adduce
evidence and present argument.
Page 3 of 11

10.

Any mention or reference to photos of the seat or there being some

defect associated with the seat and attachments: The Court grants this
motion without objection.
11.

Any mention or reference to David Conway’s death being an “instant

death”: The Court denies this motion.

Defendants are allowed to draw

reasonable inferences from plaintiff’s evidence.
12.

Any mention or reference to David Conway’s past history of paying

child support: The Court denies this motion. The financial support from
David Conway to his children is relevant for the issues of damages.
13.

Any mention or reference to undisclosed police reports involving David

Conway: The Court grants the motion without objection.
14.

Any mention or reference to prior tickets, safety violations, DOT

violations by David Conway:

The Court grants this motion without

objection.
15.

Any mention or reference to prior brain injury or traumatic brain

injury of David Conway: The Court grants this motion. Defendants argue
that it is relevant in support of damages but without supporting evidence the
inference is based on speculation.
16.

Any mention or reference to David Conway being on anti-depressants:

The Court grants this motion.

Defendants argue that it is relevant in

support of damages but without supporting evidence the inference is based
Page 4 of 11

on speculation.
17.

Any mention or reference to David Conway having used Diazepam,

Valium, Risperdol, Prozac, or other drugs. The Court grants this motion.
Defendants argue that it is relevant in support of damages but without
supporting evidence the inference is based on speculation.
18.

Any mention or reference to any prior accident involving David

Conway. The Court grants the motion as to both drivers.
19.

Any mention or reference to the mothers of David Conway’s children

being on disability or any kind of government support: The Court grants
the motion without objection.
20.

Any mention or reference to David Conway, Tammy Conway or any of

the mothers of David Conway’s children filing bankruptcy:

The Court

grants the motion without objection.
21.

Any mention or reference to any past arrests, lawsuits, or convictions

of the mothers of David Conway’s children. The Court grants the motion
without objection.
22.

Any mention or reference to the mothers of David Conway’s children

having had other children by other men: The Court grants the motion.
However, this does not eliminate the need to know who David Conway’s
children are.
23.

Any mention or reference to negligence of Five Star Trucking for this
Page 5 of 11

incident. The Court denies this motion. Evidence of the actions of a third
party may be relevant and a ruling at trial as to its admissibility is
appropriate based on its nature.
24.

Any mention or reference to the mothers of David Conway’s children

having boyfriends after David Conway. The Court grants the motion. This
evidence is not relevant.
25.

Any mention or reference to David Conway using his phone or other

electronic device in any way leading up to the crash: The Court grants the
motion except the Court will allow evidence regarding of the use of an
audiobook.
26.

Any mention or reference regarding David Conway’s missing driver

logs from before the crash: The Court grants the motion.

Without the

support evidence, the jury would be just speculating.
Defendants’ motion in limine (Doc. 131)
1. Trucking industry comments: The Court grants the motion. Carte blanche
introduction of evidence as to the industry as a whole is irrelevant to the
subject accident.
2. Any reference to “sending a message” to trucking companies and truck
drivers in response to safety or conduct issues of trucking companies and
their drivers: The Court grants the motion without objection.
3. Any reference to the financial condition, net worth, or the institutional size of
Page 6 of 11

Adrian Carriers, LLC, Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Roadrunner
Intermodal Systems, or any other Roadrunner entity: The Court grants the
motion without objection.
4. Any evidence concerning defendants’ insurance coverage: The Court grants
the motion without objection.
5. Any evidence or testimony regarding the amount of money spent by
defendants on behalf of the defense of this suit or any suit:

The Court

grants the motion without objection.
6. Any evidence or testimony regarding the number of attorneys and or/persons
representing defendants and/or assisting with defendants’ defense present in
the courtroom and/or court gallery. The Court grants this motion. The
matters defendants seek to exclude are not relevant and even though plaintiff
suggests the request is vague, it clearly is not.
7. Any reference to the economic or financial condition of the plaintiff or David
Conway’s descendants. The Court grants the motion. Once again, plaintiff
wishes to assume the motion requests more than it does.

Obviously,

plaintiff’s damage evidence is relevant to the extent it is based on admissible
evidence. Plaintiff will not be allowed to argue or present evidence that
plaintiff’s decedent’s beneficiaries are destitute and therefore need money.
8.

Any evidence or reference to the living arrangements of David Conway’s
and/or Tammy Conway’s children, and Tammy Conway including any
Page 7 of 11

assistance or lack thereof from David Conway’s parents: The Court grants
the motion. The Court will allow plaintiff to present admissible damage
evidence based on what is allowed by law. The Court will not allow plaintiff
to pray on the jury’s sympathy to pay beyond what is allowed under the law,
particularly if the evidence does not support an inference by the jury that
defendants were responsible under the law for plaintiff’s damages.
9. Any testimony, reference to, or comment, directly or indirectly, of any police
officer offering an opinion as to fault of either party that contributed to the
cause of the accident: The Court grants the motion.

Reconstruction

evidence is admissible and the findings of that investigation are admissible.
However, no witness will be allowed to opine regarding fault or relative
responsibilities by either party in causing the accident. The jury will infer and
make findings from the evidence.
10.

Any evidence or reference to any prior or subsequent accident

involving Gregory Horne: The Court grants the motion. Such evidence is
not relevant as to liability. Regarding credibility as asserted by plaintiff, the
evidence is more prejudicial than probative and the jury can be confused by
the evidence if admitted for a limited purpose.
11.

Evidence of settlement negotiations involving defendants and/or

defendants’ insurance carrier:

The Court grants the motion without

objection.
Page 8 of 11

12.

Any reference or evidence of any subsequent remedial activities

involving defendants including that Horne was terminated as a result of this
accident: The Court grants this motion over plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiff
argues that this evidence is relevant to rebut any argument by defendants that
defendant Horne was not at fault but then was fired as a result of an internal
investigation relative to the subject accident. Such remedial measure is not
admissible and is immaterial.
13.

Any reference to the quality of the post-accident investigation

conducted by defendants: The Court grants the motion without objection.
14.

Any evidence or reference to any medical condition and/or special

needs of plaintiff and/or David Conway’s descendants: The Court grants the
motion without objection.
15.

Any evidence or reference to any medications prescribed for Gregory

Horne or any medical conditions of Gregory Horne unless it can be
established by competent medical testimony that the medications cause or
contributed to cause this accident: The Court grants the motion without
objection.
16.

Any reference to Gregory Horne’s driver medical certificate:

The

Court grants the motion without objection.
17.

Any reference to any medical condition of Gregory Horne unless it can

be established by competent medical testimony that his medical condition
Page 9 of 11

caused or contributed to cause this accident: The Court grants the motion
without objection.
18.

Any evidence or reference to Gregory Horne’s qualification to operate a

commercial motor vehicle including reference or mention of his driver’s
qualification file with Adrian Carriers: The Court grants the motion. This
evidence is irrelevant.
19.

Any evidence or reference to Adrian Carriers’ hiring process or the

decision to hire or retain Gregory Horne: The Court grants the motion
without objection.
20.

Any reference to Gregory Horne’s employment application with Adrian

Carriers: The Court grants the motion. There will not be any evidence that
Horne was a good and careful driver or any evidence about his driving record
and therefore the evidence sought to keep out is irrelevant.
21.

Any and all evidence that Adrian Carriers failed to properly qualify

Horne’s competence and ability to operate a tractor-trailer:

The Court

grants the motion without objection.
22.

Any and all evidence that Adrian Carriers failed to properly train

Horne in the safe operation of a tractor-trailer: The Court grants the motion
without objection.
23.

Any and all evidence that Adrian Carriers failed to properly monitor

Horne to ensure he was in compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Page 10 of 11

Regulations: The Court grants the motion without objection.
24.

Any reference insinuating that defendant Adrian Carriers aided,

abetted, allowed, or encouraged Gregory Horne to violate the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations: The Court grants the motion without objection.
25.

Any mention of David Conway’s reputation for the safety on the job or

reputation as to character: The Court grants the motion. There will not be
any evidence regarding David Conway’s reputation for safety on the job or
reputation as to character as this evidence is irrelevant.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties
motions in limine (Docs. 129 & 131).

Judge Herndon
2018.01.31
10:47:20 -06'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

Page 11 of 11